Margin Release

17 responses so far ↓

• 1 anna // Mar 12, 2008 at 8:26 pm

  “The police state lives within us all…”

  Steve Kurtz’s work with the Critical Art Ensemble and his arrest and trial stand for something seriously worth paying attention to. How easy is it to take our lifestyles and sensibilities in America for granted? Perhaps ease isn’t the right word, but complacency. I was really happy to have the privilege to see Kurtz speak. He spoke with ease and interacted with his audience in a powerful way, engaging the us with the work.
  The most poignant part of the talk, when he caught his audience off-guard and challenged us, was when he described how a security guard in Germany, at City Hall, had simply handed over the keys to the observation deck to Kurtz and the ensemble without any hesitation in order for them to do their guerrilla art piece. The audience laughed. I think we laughed for a couple of reasons. 1) How ridiculous! 2) We laughed in the face of the sorrow for a time when people could actually trust one another. I laughed because I was thinking how something like that would never happen in America and like the rest, that our world has changed significantly since the War on Terror began several years ago. We also laughed because subconsciously, as Kurtz pointed out, we had internalized the police state ourselves.
  Tirgilio and Kurtz have both inspired me in my own practice and art-making. I struggle with art; as an individual trying to understand why I make it and why is it important. Obviously, I think we can all agree, that the work of these past two artists is far from insignificant, rather it is Critical. And deeper than that, their projects have the ability to transcend a certain sensibility and reach out in a universal way. Perhaps it was their friendly demeanor, but I think they are really doing what they believe in. They probably struggle as artists, yet they are constantly scrutinizing themselves and the context in which they work. Tirgilio and Kurtz have seeped into my consciousness. I feel inspired to not be afraid of letting in socio-political meaning into my own work. And beyond that, not be afraid to tackle something that bothers me in society. I think artists sometimes choose to avoid it since the world is vast and daunting. But these artists let us all know that if you attack a certain thing, something wrong, and try to fix it in whatever way you can think of, by the best of your knowledge and capability, you will have great repercussions.

• 2 ben // Mar 12, 2008 at 10:15 pm

  As part of their residency, the Critical Art Ensemble held a screening of Strange Culture, a documentary on Steve Kurtz’s ongoing legal battle with the U.S. government. Unfortunately, this turned out to be the type of film where the synopsis is far more compelling than the movie itself. Although I find the prospect of curtailment of freedom of expression to be terrifying and perhaps all too close at hand, I felt that the whining and proselytizing tone of the film does not help advance the cause.

  Between the dramatizations of Steve Kurtz and the interviews with the real Steve Kurtz, the same thing is said over and over again, and somehow it loses its punch in the process. If the story presented by the Critical Art Ensemble is to be believed, then little else needs to be said. Given the one-sidedness of the presentation of “facts,” whether one sympathizes with Mr. Kurtz has everything to do with political leaning, and little to do with the movie, unless of course the movie erodes your pre-existing sympathy.

  There are several dramatized scenes in the movie where students are bullied by Steve Kurtz supporters for their reluctance to sign a petition on his behalf. Judging by the collection of clipboards that the Critical Art Ensemble brought with them to the screening, I felt that each and every one of us in the audience where expected to either sign, or face ridicule.

  It is a shame, because I do sense the injustice of the Steve Kurtz fiasco, and I have no trouble believing that a government seized with post-9/11 hysteria is capable of committing what Mr. Kurtz alleges. Nonetheless, I do not respect the fact that Mr. Kurtz and friends have sunk to the same level as their persecutors.

  There is a fine line between activism and propaganda, and I think the Critical Art Ensemble may have crossed it.

• 3 noah // Mar 13, 2008 at 12:06 am

  As much as I would like to laud Mr. Kurtz for keeping something approximating a level head in what is obviously an incredibly difficult situation, I cannot help but echo Dorfan’s sentiment, at least in some regard. My problem was not with the information put forward by Mr. Kurtz or the film, but rather the tone with which it was presented.

  The tone of Steve’s talk was whimsical and rather light-hearted, but with a note of bitterness towards the authorities at odds with the CAE’s agendas. At the time of the talk, I thought this was more than appropriate given his experiences with authorities of that nature, and dismissed his fairly broad-reaching condemnation of virtually all things corporate or governmental as such. It seemed, in the context of his work and his experience, that he was more than entitled to a little bit of hyperbole.

  The film’s approach struck me as endemic of exactly the type of expressive and perceptive distortion that Steve claims to make a life out of fighting, and while I realize that the film’s vision is not his vision, I nevertheless struggle not to view his tone in the context of the film’s tone. I think in general, people often respond to perceived injustice or misfortune through self-aggrandizement, and while this impulse is completely understandable and completely human, it still left a sour taste in my mouth in this case.

  I think it is important that as artists, students of art, and citizens, we do not become so enveloped in railing against the establishment that we become unable to see the value in it. In my estimation, this frequently becomes the essential flaw in the intellectual processes of artists or other individuals who purport to be working outside of or in opposition to the norm. In the context of Steve, this manifested in his portrayal of the police as uniformly and universally malicious and useless; while I can obviously understand the impetus for his feelings in that regard, it is nevertheless important to remember that regardless of our law enforcement’s copious flaws, the system in question is still in place not because of an evil conspiracy, but rather because our lives would not function without it. It is important to avoid the same arbitrary dogmatism and hyperbole that we resent in the authority we claim to disapprove of. Steve has obviously suffered a great injustice in this situation, but in the parlance of our times, his presentation sold his case twice over, and in doing so he may have actually detracted from its efficacy.

• 4 Louie Weiss // Mar 13, 2008 at 7:26 pm

  While I agree that the film is problematic , I think it is equally problematic to cast Kurtz as someone who has equally distortive tendencies as the authorities that he is trying to fight. I Think that Kurtz’s work, more than anything else, is about elucidation, and though through the mediums in which he elucidates information, he and the CAE clearly convey some kind of political bent, I think that Kurtz has more conviction about revealing esoteric and secret information then he does about preaching vehemently against authority.
  If one were to have never seen or known about Kurtz’s work before one went to see the movie, I could understand why one would think that his anti-surveillance-age “propoganda” is his modus operandi. I think that given that we know that he is really after something else, we can give him a little bit of a break considering how angry he must be about how much time and money he has spent on disproving the allegation that he is a bio-terrorist/ mail fraud “artist.”
  I think that what Steve is after is something incredibely powerful. Far from overly reactive, I think that Kurtz is merely trying to reveal information in an unbiased fashion to a public that wouldn’t otherwise know that it actually has the right and the power to aquire this information. In this sense, I see Steve as a vehicle by which people can and should become an informed and empowered citizenry. As he stated in his talk in the afternoon (and also a message that has been echoed countless times since I have come to Oberlin), the only kind of citizenry that is going to be able to exact change is an informed one, one that knows its constitutional rights and has a grasp on the technological and cultural changes that are ocurring around them.

• 5 John // Mar 13, 2008 at 8:41 pm

  Steve’s work in Daytona with the toy cars and arrest made me want to see more, in different places, with different scenarios. What he set out to prove rang true and at the same time made me question the approach. It is easy to see the kind of paranoia and police state mentality that may be invading our own thinking and behavior. But it is hard to disentangle the difference between a growing and unnecessarily extreme fear versus the kind of behavior that would be beyond the norm anyways, anywhere. The kinds of examples like the incident at RPI seems a lot more directly relevant to Kurtz’s point, where the kind of inherited police-state mind censors and runs in conflict with art practice. Steve’s work at Daytona seemed harder to use as a case in point because the aim of that art piece was specifically to run into the law in the first place. The stakes seem insignificant at Daytona compared to the artist at RPI, whose serious and critical insight fell victim to overt paranoia and fear of terrorism.

  Another thought I had was that the restrictions imposed by police state mentality are only problematic when they actually run counter to actions that people would desire to carry out in the first place. So if I know that I might be arrested for running in circles and doing handstands wearing a clown hat in a mall, I might not care so much because I can’t really imagine ever having a dire need to act in such fashion. On the other hand, it may well be that my knowledge of the inappropriateness or even an existing law against clown hats actually molds my desires for or against acting in such ways. So in one sense, it is my desires that puts arrest and censorship into context and relevancy; and in another, it is the arrests and censorship that may be influencing my range of desires. From this angle, the experiment at Daytona seems to maintain an importance. But its value then lies in exploring the boundaries of the accepted and the intolerable, which in turn begs for more samples in order to more fully understand where we stand as a nation - in our mental and cultural state.

• 6 arden // Mar 13, 2008 at 9:14 pm

  In no way did I find Steve Kurtz pushing a personal agenda or attempting to convince us to denounce institutionalism. Rather, it seemed quite clear that he was exhausted by his experience, yet felt it was his obligation to highlight the censorship that our democracy imposes. While Kurtz obviously benefits personally from publicizing his story, he is also attempting to tackle a concern with our future as citizens that goes far beyond his personal case. Kurtz is one of many unique artists to incorporate social awareness and civil interest into his work, and he should be recognized for this rather than accused of promoting social upheaval.
  Unfortunately, I felt that the film undermined this concept completely. Although I understand that Kurtz had very little artistic license over its production, I do wish that it had not misrepresented many of the events. I considered it to be hugely beneficial that Kurtz was there after to speak more about his personal involvement and interpretations of different situations. Additionally, I believe the documentary could have resonated more if it had incorporated the issue beyond Kurtz’s case. I think then audiences would finally understand how Kurtz’s case could actually affect them.
  Most importantly, I am glad that Kurtz is compelling us to question our evolved notions of expression. His art causes us to feel suddenly restricted in a presumably open society and reflect on the progression of our “anti-terrorist” state. Hopefully with this consciousness we can recognize and prevent the absurd repression that we have labeled as normalcy.

• 7 max theodore // Mar 15, 2008 at 12:06 pm

  Firstly, I would like to disagree with the perspective put forth by Noah, who compared the arbitrary dogmatism and hyperbole of ‘the establishment’ to that of Steve Kurtz. While it should be acknowledged that Steve is an individual with certain values and (circumstantial) biases, it would be wrong to simplify his message into that of dogmatic anti-establishment rhetoric. What Steve’s work gets at isn’t just ‘fighting the man,’ so to speak, though that is certainly one level of it. It aims for a larger idea of performance in our society. Or society AS performance, with each role as just that, a role we play.
  A lot of his work was about the same thing: Exposing censorship. And though he clearly was anti- censorship, once he had exposed it, it was up to you to decide whether this was wrong. To echo Arden’s post, his tactile installations give you a sense of empowerment, not only because of their political message, but also because they reveal the building blocks of civil society, whether they be, the police, the government, the media, a lawyer, or spectator. In this sense, Steve Kurtz’s work isn’t just anti-establishment, but also: establishment, in that it promotes broader understandings, (not only positive or negative evaluation of), the institutions we know as culture and civil society.

  Secondly, I wanted to address Steve’s arrest, brief imprisonment, and indictment. I was curious to know if in a way, this trial, the publicity, was a bit of an art piece as well. Not that I would go so far as to say a great injustice had not occurred, especially after the tragic death of his wife. But how could we look at this as a continuation of the work Steve Kurtz has done over the past several years? I wonder to what extent the content of his work will change due to the death of his wife and imprisonment?

• 8 Sara K // Mar 16, 2008 at 9:42 am

  I don’t think that Kurtz was pushing any sort of propaganda. He is pushing a critical perspective that is so needed. If you suspend any judgment of wit or charisma, the fact of how persistent and critical Steve’s work is wins me over. The thing that struck me the most in talking with and hearing Kurtz speak was that he is confident in his opposition. I wasn’t struck by the obvious opposition to awfull things such as war, poverty, or disease. But what Kurtz underlined and highlighted for me was his resistance to “expression management.” The conviction in which he talked about this term was uplifting and exciting as it gave name to nuanced things that often don’t get spoken about or believed in becuase there is no language to really talk about the effects of expression management.
  To relate it to a struggle at Oberlin for many students is the housing situation where the college is forcing students to live on campus in places like Fire lands or Union Street. Union Street housing is smartly disguised as a sturdy House. However, the rooms in those houses are not so different than a single cell dormitory in North or South. Although this effort from the college to keep everyone in controlled housing is driven first and foremost by money (understandably) it seems also to be a very strict form of expression management. Where the cabinets and desks are all made out of this dense garishly colored plastic “wood” it is nearly impossible to create an individual space with an aesthetic that suits ones needs.
  Anyways, back to Steve. I heard someone saying that Kurtz could have easily paid the 500$ fine and pled guilty and not had to go through the trials and tribulations of dealing with the court system. To do that would be corrupt. That would be how Kurtz could sink to “their” level. To do that would flat out be accepting guilt for something absurd.
  It comes down to the basics that are so often overlooked in our own lives, say what you mean and mean what you say. Walk your talk and talk your walk. General life principles that are actually so true.

• 9 matt // Mar 16, 2008 at 12:59 pm

  The CAE’s work is interesting to me because of its participation-as-education tool. The art is a vehicle for a definable and specific political message each time, and yet at each piece’s conception, there is no telling what the result will be (nor is it clear that there is a definite result in mind).
  I’ve been thinking about how so many pieces ended with “and then the police showed up.” Most times (at least the ones Steve talked about), it was never about the explicit message of a piece. When a piece got shut down, it was always under the guise of a secondary concern- for example, the “Beer police” with Project Eve. In that end, the state uses its authority in ways that the populace probably didn’t realize the state would, in order to protect another arm of itself. When Project Eve got into trouble in Germany, it was because they had “impure beer,” but how many Germans were worried about the impure beer of an art group when they consented to having a beer standards enforcement agency? Likewise with the same project, cults may have been banned in France, for a good reason, but did that reason have anything to do with art? No. But both times, we see how far the state will go in order to protect its status quo (not that I’m saying there is a genuine conspiracy).

  Also, although I sympathize with comments about the film’s portrayal of the case, I cannot agree with the complaints about Steve’s visit that call into question why he was here. The charges he’s facing are real, and so are what has happened to him. To fault him for trying to find support after his ordeals is to truly have “internalized the police state,” to use his words. Julia asked him to show the film, and he did. We could have had a visit they focused solely on the CAE, but we made a decision to know about what is going on now with Steve’s life.

• 10 dory // Mar 16, 2008 at 5:30 pm

  Although I see where you’re coming from, Noah, I struggle with your suggestion that “our lives would not function” without the political and judicial system that’s responsible for Steve’s prosecution. Our lives are perfectly capable of functioning in a state that isn’t founded on fear, and I think it’s important to differentiate between our abilities as human beings and our inclinations as citizens of a particular nation, citizens who are subject to that states’ particular policies. If anything good is to come of the legal nightmare that Steve Kurtz is still enduring, I’d hope it’s a grasp of the limitations we’ve internalized as citizens of a police state.

  I’ve also been thinking about our responsibilities as students. A lot of CAE’s work centers on educating the public about the human sciences; despite the eerily far-reaching effects of things like human genome research and genetically modified food production, most of us don’t know much of anything about it. As students, though, I think we’re in a special position—every semester I have the option to register for whatever classes I want, including neuroscience, biology, chemistry… whatever. I, for one, have never taken a real science class, because I’d rather be taking English or Politics or Art classes (Margin Release is a case in point). Is it my responsibility to be educating myself, since I have the opportunity? And furthermore, is my lack of interest in taking any of these classes just a product of my socialization as an “artist”?

  It’s unlikely that I’ll be registering for Bio 118 next semester, but I’ve been thinking about it—and I think that taking into account the censorship I’m exercising on my own education is something worth noting, and maybe it’s a step towards cutting fear out of the way we all relate with the world around us.

• 11 hannah nc vaughan // Mar 17, 2008 at 2:23 pm

  I was fascinated and slightly disturbed by Steve Kurtz’s educational and playful approach to political art. On the surface of the activities/ installations the viewer is compelled to participate, play with science or toy trains and in that play the real message or disturbing truth becomes apparent. While playing around with test tubes and learning how to test to see if fruits and veggies are genetically modified, you realizes that you don’t know if the food you are ingesting on a regular basis has been modified by scientists without your consent. While watching a thirty-something man play with trains at a rest stop in Florida, you realize that the police can arrest you, anytime they want, if your behavior seems somehow out of step with cultural norms. I think this social interaction in the art process is really key to the CAE’s success in raising the awareness of the general public, not just art critics.
  In CAE’s performance based art projects, I see a real drive toward the democratization knowledge, which I think runs counter to the current state of knowledge in this country. Instead of more and more people having the power and education to make their own decisions, fewer and fewer ‘experts’ are making the decisions for the rest of us. People don’t get the choice at the grocery store whether or not they want to have produce that is genetically engineered; the experts that the large food corporations have employed have already made that decision for us. When Steve Kurtz and the CAE set up shop in an art gallery and explain what genetically modified food is, and show people how to test it for themselves, they are trying to reverse the specialization of knowledge. By explaining a scientific experiment in laymen’s terms, and demonstrating how everyone can do it themselves, CAE is taking the power away from the experts and putting it in the hands of the general public. It is refreshing to have some people standing up to our culture of experts and showing people that they too can be knowledgeable about their world.

• 12 ally // Mar 19, 2008 at 12:01 am

  Matt, while I agree with your assertion that the reaction to Steve’s work is a confused attempt to maintain the status quo, I can’t help but think that for practitioners of tactical media this police intervention is somewhat appreciated (current situation aside). If all publicity is good publicity, then the CAE may not be exactly dismayed at getting a little extra attention from The Man.

  You mentioned that there is not always a definite, intended outcome to CAE’s pieces, however I would argue that the act of civil disobedience in and of itself is the primary outcome of their work. No matter what the content, they are constantly trying to reveal the institutionalized control of knowledge that has become standard in the capitalist era.

  Personally, some of their most affecting pieces have been those related to electronic civil disobedience and the theoretical works behind it. Having completely recontextualized my traditional notions of hegemony, I am beginning to believe in the power of the digital proletariat.

• 13 cubby // Apr 1, 2008 at 7:05 am

  In reference to Hannah’s comment, I see a correlation between play revealing more severe messages and Steve’s storytelling technique. His humorous and often ironic tone made the impact of the final result of each episode from the life of CAE—whether it was a personal or a political realization—that much more shocking. It’s understandable that in Steve’s position, you need to appreciate irony and to retain a sense of humor in order to stay sane. With the palpable pattern of the way he wove CAE’s narratives, however, Steve became a more provocative speaker with a strong style.

  I feel a tension between thinking about Steve’s visit versus CAE’s work. Though talking about his message seems like an option somewhere between those two, details of the trial provoked me to view Kurtz’s time here and his entire persona surrounded on that aspect of his life. Maybe because the messages of his artwork and of his narrative about the trial seem to share a common message, I caught myself grouping the trial with CAE’s works of art.

  I wonder if others also feel this tension. Perhaps it is partly responsible for the skepticism about Steve’s message.

• 14 logan // Apr 8, 2008 at 4:35 pm

  This discussion makes me think of a piece that Ian Page made last semester for the Creative Resistance class, called ‘On the Eve of Becoming an Artist’. You can listen to a recording of an essay he wrote and read for it here:

  http://youwillneverfind.us/creativeresistance07/ontheeveof.mov

  His essay essentially questions why artists aren’t taken seriously in the ‘functional sphere’ of society (aka the ‘real world’), and instead limit their creative abilities to a narrow, ultimately self-referential ‘art world’. I think he asks some relevant questions, and I think it’s especially interesting to look at the work of Steve Kurtz from the essay’s perspective, because in many ways Steve is the inverse of what Ian is talking about. Steve’s position poses a similar question as Ian but in the opposite direction: is it possible for an artist to be taken too seriously? If so where is the balance between too serious and arbitrary?

  I think Steve is a good example of an artist who’s work deals with and has an effect on many aspects of the ‘real world’ (such as his work with genetic engineering in organic food), and in a lot of ways his being arrested by the FBI beautifully demonstrates a lot of what the CAE attempts to illuminate through their art. There is a sort of grim irony to this.

• 15 Gavin // Apr 10, 2008 at 12:06 am

  While this post is extremely late, perhaps we are simply too close temporally to achieve the perspective necessary to make this judgment. That aside, since the talk by Steve Kurtz I managed to flip through my copy of McLuhan’s The Medium is the Massage. A striking piece even today, at one juncture he states that “Art is anything you can get away with.” The text is interspersed around a collage of photographs, documenting the 82-foot-long, 20-foot-high sculpture, in Moderna Museet, Stockholm of what is aptly described as, “the biggest and best woman in the world…you can walk around in her.” While our society is markedly different than McLuhan’s of 1967, this message seems particularly poignant when considering the work of Steve Kurtz and the CAE.

  The content of the work largely deals with questioning those institutions and social constructs that are somewhat blindly accepted by the public. In many ways, this subversive work reveals that fairly innocent practices such as playing with trains, checking for hormones in produce, forming a cult… brewing your own beer and baking your own bread , launching powder off of towers… perhaps some of these sound abnormal. However, the similarities to practices by varied governments are quite striking. For me, the work spoke of the displacement of accepted rituals to other spaces. Resulting in a questioning of the act, often by a police/governmental force that supported these actions at another juncture. It brings into question hierarchies of knowledge existent in our society and the fragmentation of spaces and bodies related to ritual or performative activities.

  In a sense, the pieces have a strong message as they reveal the levels at which the government will intervene, providing an indication of “what you can get away with”. Indeed, this was the truly illuminating portion of their work for me.

• 16 sarah // Apr 16, 2008 at 7:34 pm

  In the morning talk I felt that what Kurtz was doing seemed a little absurd. While I admired the diverse approaches and passion he and The Critical Art Ensemble had it seemed like they often tried to do things that would end in arrest or confrontation-nearly every one of his stories ended with “and it was time to leave ——- (insert many European countries here).” I think the human Genome project, the GM crops testing etc were very interesting things to point out but I feel like he raises awareness for those things more in the post-ness of the projects occurrences. What I mean is that the people who experience the shows may not really want to experience them or know that they are until it is over and as a result might not really be effected by what Kurtz and his group are trying to do. I think him telling us about the problems and then presenting what he did was more effective and really showed the problems. It seemed like this was a better way to get the message across than the actual shows since many of them were shut down.
  Going back to what I mentioned earlier, if he really wanted to point something out about a specific policy and have as many people as possible be impacted by his projects he would have done them in such a way that they were not going to be shut down so quickly or cause problems and riots (the cult of eve). It seemed like he instead of really wanting to point out individual problems really ultimately just wanted to show how bad police were and how controlled we are as people by our powerful government who restricts our thinking and makes us live in fear and distrust of authority ( I do not feel this way I am just saying that is what I felt like he was saying.) I think this idea is supported by the car display at Daytona. Literally he went out of his way to cause problems and just wanted to challenge the police who are just trying to do their job, to protect us.
  It is evident from his stories and from the RPI events that police, media and normal citizens go overboard sometimes, but it is out of fear for their lives, safety and way of life, which they like even if it isn’t perfect or completely enlightened. I just felt like he was also a little condescending in that way, claiming that people did not realize what was going on to them, that they were being controlled in such a way. Like it was his job to point out our ignorance and the powers that controlled us evil nature.
  After seeing the movie and realizing what he went through I can understand why he might be so patianet about his cause and pointing out the problems in our country and government. But still I feel like he is disregarding and making a rather large generalization about police and authorities. What about police and fireman who rescue people or the politicians who voted for civil rights bills and women’s right to vote, the end of prohibition? I think those people might be doing something good. And yes our government and police now might be jumping to conclusions and but we should remember they are trying to do their jobs (bomb robots etc). it may in our educated hindsight seem like ridiculous procedures, but this hyper sensitively is sort of new. Had people prior to 9/11 called in the strange flight classes and things about the men who flew into the towers people would have called them racists etc and said what they were reporting was silly and impossible. But now that we have experienced 9/11 the government has to try to protect us as best they can, even if what they are doing really isn’t the best and most functional thing. Our country isn’t that bad and I don’t think over protective police isn’t that bad compared to government controlled media in Russia, Tibetan riots in china and Stoning in Iran. We do not have articles about us in the NYtimes that say “In South Africa, Crime Is Child’s Play,” describing children being so enveloped by violence that the play games that involve the simulation of rape. I think many of us have seen beheadings and such things online that go on in other countries and are sanctioned by their governments.
  I do agree that the continued trial or Kurtz seems ridiculous because he did not do anything wrong, and our government does have a problem with accepting when is wrong and apologies, but really overall besides a lack of good national education it really isn’t that bad and I wish Kurtz would have pointed some of that out.

• 17 Lauren // Apr 28, 2008 at 8:01 pm

  Recently I have been thinking a lot about the Critical Art Ensemble’s work with Genetically Modified Food. I have been doing a lot of reading on this topic and have come to appreciate the aim of their project. Food is one of the most important issues that humans can interest themselves in, mainly since we need it to live. There are so many issues going on with our food culture today and I am not sure that enough is being done to raise awareness about these issues. From our skyrocketing obesity rates, neverending fad diets, the rising price of food, evil companies like monsanto, the demise of the small farmer, the moral quandaries of factory farming animals and its environmental repricussions, and the ambiguity of information of GMOs there is much to learn about that which provides us with our nourishment and nutrients. Not everyone has the time and interest to dive into all of these subjects head on but they are important. I think that the CAE GMO testing project is a really great way to raise awareness about food issues. In america GMOs don’t even have to be labeled in the supermarket as genetically modified since legislation has determined that a genetically modified potato which is engineered for each cell in its makeup to produce a pesticide, thus the potato its self acts as a pesticide, is “substantially equivalent” to a regular old potato. We should know what we are eating! I think a project like this is excellent since it raises awareness in a straightforward, inclusive manner that is accessible to everyone. I like the idea of art as a way to explore and educate and hopefully this project will get a chance to tour America, the way it did Europe given the recent course of events regarding the trial.

Leave a Comment